Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

partyguinness

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Because in that video he is actually being a violent thug.

He is the attacker. He also discharged a dangerous weapon.

And I never said any cop anywhere "has licence to kill in the face of any conflict".

In fact I've posted several times that I do not know if Rolffe was justified (legally or otherwise) in shooting Brooks.

Cops are supposed to be trained to deal with stressful and hostile situations. Trigger happy 'shoot first ask questions later' seems to the quick fix approach instead of being a cop and deescalating a tense situation. They make it worse.

Reaching for a gun seems to be the default position with quite a few US cops.

Shooting dead a guy in the back who is unarmed (a taser doesnt count and it is not regarded as a dangerouse weapon even by the police themselves) and running away is unjustified and not reasonable. It amounts to an extra judicial killing.

BattleCorp

partyguinness wrote: »

Cops are supposed to be trained to deal with stressful and hostile situations. Trigger happy 'shoot first ask questions later' seems to the quick fix approach instead of being a cop and deescalating a tense situation. They make it worse.

Reaching for a gun seems to be the default position with quite a few US cops.

Shooting dead a guy in the back who is unarmed (a taser doesnt count) and running away is unjustified and not reasonable. It amounts to an extra judicial killing.

This wasn't a shoot first, ask questions later scenario. They spoke to Brooks for over 30 minutes in a calm fashion. Brooks tried to talk his way out of a DUI and failed. The cops attempted to carry out a lawful arrest and Brooks then initiated a violent struggle by resisting arrest.

So here's the breakdown.

Brooks was DUI.
Brooks resisted arrest.
Brooks assaulted two police officers.
Brooks stole a police taser.
Brooks attacked one of the police officers with the taser.

This is what caused the officer to respond by shooting Brooks. If the cops were trigger happy, they could have shot him much earlier in the proceedings.

Someone reaching for a gun is justification for an armed response in every country that has armed police. The ERU here in Ireland wouldn't wait until you had the gun pointed at them before they shot you. They'd nip that in the bud as soon as you reached for the gun.

Yes, cops are supposed to be trained but they aren't very well trained. Plus they had just been assaulted. It's like Mike Tyson used to say "Everyone has a plan until I smash them in the face".

A taser most certainly counts as a weapon. You can't even get a licence for one here in Ireland. They are totally prohibited. There is video footage taken two weeks before the Brooks shooting where the DA says that a taser is a dangerous weapon. That will most certainly be played at the cop's trial if it ever gets that far.

And regarding Brooks running away. Here's another breakdown.

Brooks grabbed the taser, then ran about 15 feet and turned and fired. This took about 2 seconds. He then turned and ran again. It would have only taken him another second to turn around and fire again at the cop.

The cop had a split second to make a decision and he did so. Tragically for Brooks but are cops not allowed to defend themselves any more?

Brooks was the author of his own misfortune.

john123470

Stateofyou wrote: »

Go argue the issue with Black on black crime wherever that's a topic or start your own, and at the same time you can also argue the separate issue of white on white crime. This thread is about the killing of an unarmed man by a police force which is statistically shown to have bias and the US government and President are currently engaged in massive reforms.
I'm out.

haha .. youre out ok. Duck out when your arguments are shredded

Spon Farmer

partyguinness wrote: »

Cops are supposed to be trained to deal with stressful and hostile situations. Trigger happy 'shoot first ask questions later' seems to the quick fix approach instead of being a cop and deescalating a tense situation. They make it worse.

Reaching for a gun seems to be the default position with quite a few US cops.

Shooting dead a guy in the back who is unarmed (a taser doesnt count and it is not regarded as a dangerouse weapon even by the police themselves) and running away is unjustified and not reasonable. It amounts to an extra judicial killing.

Training does not make anyone perfect and all the training in the world will not prepare a person to react properly all the time.


This was not a "tense" situation. It was 40 minutes of calm everyday goings on that erupted into unexpected violence.

The cops tired to warn and subdue Brooks but he overpowered them. Did you see the video? He threw Rolffe like he was a stuffed teddy bear?

What should they have done? Let him run?

And what if he had hurt an actual innocent person while fleeing? Or used the taser on someone?

They can actually do harm.

And I never said Rolffe was right to shoot him.

weldoninhio

Stateofyou wrote: »

Maybe if sh!t goes sideways, they call in armed enforcement that is there within minutes (unlike Ireland, ha ha)

Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang. Did it take you a few minutes to read that?? Because thats a lot less time than it takes to fire six times. Armed enforcement can recover the bodies.

weldoninhio

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I see that you ignore the posts that are difficult to respond to.

I'm still waiting for a link showing Trump saying there was racial bias in the police force like he is consistently claiming.

weldoninhio

Stateofyou wrote: »

If you're going to bring up Brook's past as if it has any bearing on what happened, then look at the cops past with his own dodgy disciplinary record. I haven't seen you bringing that into the equation.

Brooks past: violence, prison, child assault, etc.

Rolfe: got a few talkings to.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

partyguinness

BattleCorp wrote: »

This wasn't a shoot first, ask questions later scenario. They spoke to Brooks for over 30 minutes in a calm fashion. Brooks tried to talk his way out of a DUI and failed. The cops attempted to carry out a lawful arrest and Brooks then initiated a violent struggle by resisting arrest.

So here's the breakdown.

Brooks was DUI.
Brooks resisted arrest.
Brooks assaulted two police officers.
Brooks stole a police taser.
Brooks attacked one of the police officers with the taser.

This is what caused the officer to respond by shooting Brooks. If the cops were trigger happy, they could have shot him much earlier in the proceedings.

Someone reaching for a gun is justification for an armed response in every country that has armed police. The ERU here in Ireland wouldn't wait until you had the gun pointed at them before they shot you. They'd nip that in the bud as soon as you reached for the gun.

Yes, cops are supposed to be trained but they aren't very well trained. Plus they had just been assaulted. It's like Mike Tyson used to say "Everyone has a plan until I smash them in the face".

A taser most certainly counts as a weapon. You can't even get a licence for one here in Ireland. They are totally prohibited. There is video footage taken two weeks before the Brooks shooting where the DA says that a taser is a dangerous weapon. That will most certainly be played at the cop's trial if it ever gets that far.

And regarding Brooks running away. Here's another breakdown.

Brooks grabbed the taser, then ran about 15 feet and turned and fired. This took about 2 seconds. He then turned and ran again. It would have only taken him another second to turn around and fire again at the cop.

The cop had a split second to make a decision and he did so. Tragically for Brooks but are cops not allowed to defend themselves any more?

Brooks was the author of his own misfortune.

You have intermingled several different aspects. I can distill down all that- he was running off with a taser in his hand that he could not work.

The cop pulled out a gun and shot him in the back. He was running off and haphazardly tried to shoot off the taser back at the cops. If he was firing a gun or had a gun on his hand- we wouldnt be having this debate. I repeat that it was a taser that he couldnt even work and even then he was too far away to actually hit the cop which the cops would have known.

Surely if he is running off into the darkness just step aside and let him.

With regard the DUI charges etc you listed well then catch him another day and bring him before the Courts and off to jail for many years. Be a police officer- not Mr Big Balls with a gun.

You defend yourself when you are under attack or about to be attacked. When an assailant is running away you are not under attack. The cop pulled out his gun and took aim at his back. He was certainly not defending himself.

It was excessive force. Full stop.

Spon Farmer

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm still waiting for a link showing Trump saying there was racial bias in the police force like he is consistently claiming.

Maybe yer man saw Brenden Gleeson in the Trump make up and got confused.

[IMG]https://www.nme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/trumpgleeson-696x442.jpg[/IMG I only signed in this morning to ask a DIY question. Now my whole morning is gone. :P Got to delete those current affairs and TV thread subscriptions:rolleyes:[/img]

weldoninhio

partyguinness wrote: »

You have intermingled several different aspects. I can distill down all that- he was running off with a taser in his hand that he could not work.

The cop pulled out a gun and shot him in the back. He was running off and haphazardly tried to shoot off the taser back at the cops. If he was firing a gun or had a gun on his hand- we wouldnt be having this debate. I repeat that it was a taser that he couldnt even work and even then he was too far away to actually hit the cop which the cops would have known.

Surely if he is running off into the darkness just step aside and let him.

With regard the DUI charges etc you listed well then catch him another day and bring him before the Courts and off to jail for many years. Be a police officer- not Mr Big Balls with a gun.

You defend yourself when you are under attack or about to be attacked. When an assailant is running away you are not under attack. The cop pulled out his gun and took aim at his back. He was certainly not defending himself.

It was excessive force. Full stop.

It worked well enough when he fired it at the cop

Spon Farmer

weldoninhio wrote: »

Brooks past: violence, prison, child assault, etc.

Rolfe: got a few talkings to.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Who actually made the complaints about Brooks?

Couldn't be criminals or such. When they get pinched they just accept it as fair.

Being a bit rough with a criminal (who by there nature lack any regard for decency) is just terrible.

Spon Farmer

partyguinness wrote: »

You have intermingled several different aspects. I can distill down all that- he was running off with a taser in his hand that he could not work.

The cop pulled out a gun and shot him in the back. He was running off and haphazardly tried to shoot off the taser back at the cops. If he was firing a gun or had a gun on his hand- we wouldnt be having this debate. I repeat that it was a taser that he couldnt even work and even then he was too far away to actually hit the cop which the cops would have known.

Surely if he is running off into the darkness just step aside and let him.

With regard the DUI charges etc you listed well then catch him another day and bring him before the Courts and off to jail for many years. Be a police officer- not Mr Big Balls with a gun.

You defend yourself when you are under attack or about to be attacked. When an assailant is running away you are not under attack. The cop pulled out his gun and took aim at his back. He was certainly not defending himself.

It was excessive force. Full stop.

The taser did fire.

Even if it had't what was to stop Brooks trying again and again.

Did you not see the fight? Brooks was a dangerous man.

partyguinness

Spon Farmer wrote: »

The taser did fire.

Even if it had't what was to stop Brooks trying again and again.

Did you not see the fight? Brooks was a dangerous man.

A taser is not a lethal weapon. Depending on the model they either have 1-3 shots before they need to be reloaded with a cartridge which I assume Brookes did not have on him.

Again it all comes down to use of force by the cop which was excessive.

Nobody is saying that the cops cannot defend themselves or use force if necessary but it must be proportionate and reasonable.

Brooks a dangerous man? He was not the one carrying around a loaded gun and shooting people in the back.

Shooting a guy in the back (his background and ifs and buts is conjexture at this stage and irrelevant) while he is running away haphazardly waving around a taser is excessive.

weldoninhio

partyguinness wrote: »

A taser is not a lethal weapon. Depending on the model they either have 1-3 shots before they need to be reloaded with a cartridge which I assume Brookes did not have on him.

Again it all comes down to use of force by the cop which was excessive.

Nobody is saying that the cops cannot defend themselves or use force if necessary but it must be proportionate and reasonable.

Brooks a dangerous man? He was not the one carrying around a loaded gun and shooting people in the back.

Shooting a guy in the back (his background and ifs and buts is conjexture at this stage and irrelevant) while he is running away haphazardly shooting a taser at the police officers is excessive.

Fixed your post. The taser had three barbs in it. Brooks had two other shots left.

Bold Abdu

partyguinness wrote: »

A taser is not a lethal weapon.

Under Georgia law a taser is a deadly weapon

BattleCorp

partyguinness wrote: »

A taser is not a lethal weapon. Depending on the model they either have 1-3 shots before they need to be reloaded with a cartridge which I assume Brookes did not have on him.

A taser is a lethal weapon. You can't get a licence for one in Ireland. A taser is considered a lethal weapon in Georgia too by the way. Below are details of a statement from Howard, the Fulton County DA. He made that statement two weeks ago.

But Ture noted that Howard had undermined the prosecution's case with his own words in another unrelated case.

Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law.

So, it's clear that the Fulton County DA considered a taser to be a deadly weapon.

Again it all comes down to use of force by the cop which was excessive.

We have a difference of opinion here. I respect your right to view it your way. I don't agree with it, but so be it.

Nobody is saying that the cops cannot defend themselves or use force if necessary but it must be proportionate and reasonable.

Stateofyou seems to think so based on some of his comments earlier in the thread.

Brooks a dangerous man? He was not the one carrying around a loaded gun and shooting people in the back.

Did you not see the video where Brooks was DUI. Where he resisted arrest. Where he violently assaulted two cops. Where he used force to steal a police taser. Where he endangered the lives of the cops by firing the taser at them?

What if it was the police officer's gun that he took from him? That mightn't have ended up well for the cop. Lucky for the cop that it was the taser that he took.

The cop was legally in possession of the gun. Brooks was illegally in possession of a stolen police taser that he had just stolen using violence. I'd consider someone who did that to be pretty dangerous.

Shooting a guy in the back (his background and ifs and buts is conjexture at this stage and irrelevant) while he is running away haphazardly waving around a taser is excessive.

He didn't just wave the taser around. He shot it at the cops. I'd have a problem with the cops shooting him if he was unarmed, but he had a stolen police taser that he had just fired at the cops.

GreeBo

I Am Nobody wrote: »

Brooks transformed himself into a criminal by doing criminal things.Proof is in the pudding.Your issues with your father has nothing to do with the Brooks case.

We dont shoot criminals out of hand, we have judges and juries first.

GreeBo

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Some of his crimes including obstructing an officer, family battery violence, possessing weapons during a crime, receiving stolen property, felony cruelty to children, interfering with custody, false imprisonment, snatching his children without permission from the mother, and battery

ye absolute credit to his mother ,

If any of those crimes were relevant to him being shot, then why wasnt he just shot on sight?

GreeBo

Rodin wrote: »

How many convictions does someone need to have before they're a "bad man" in your book.

At what point do we execute a "bad man" in your book?

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Go argue the issue with Black on black crime wherever that's a topic or start your own, and at the same time you can also argue the separate issue of white on white crime. This thread is about the killing of an unarmed man by a police force which is statistically shown to have bias and the US government and President are currently engaged in massive reforms.
I'm out.

On what planet was he 'unarmed'?

Her became violent, he fired first. A split second before he is shot, he is facing the police and are aiming a potentially lethal weapon.

That's not unarmed and trying to push that after 160+ pages is plain trolling

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

At what point do we execute a "bad man" in your book?

When he's threatening the lives of good men.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Gotcha. Why did you call him a thug, then?
Ok about that night he died- the police officer was more violent in shooting a fleeing man in the back. Cops actually don't, or shouldn't have a licence to kill in the face of any conflict.

So police can only be less violent than they are facing? Think straight for a second.

Of course police use force superior to what they are facing. Otherwise no one would be arrested and even more police would be hospitalised than already happens

partyguinness

BattleCorp wrote: »

A taser is a lethal weapon. You can't get a licence for one in Ireland. A taser is considered a lethal weapon in Georgia too by the way. Below are details of a statement from Howard, the Fulton County DA. He made that statement two weeks ago.

So, it's clear that the Fulton County DA considered a taser to be a deadly weapon.

So what if you can't get a licence for it in Ireland? You cannot compare Ireland and US in terms of weapon culture.

There is no way that a taser with a limited 1-3 jolts of electricity is the equivalent of a loaded gun in the hands of a trained marksman. You need to be quite close and steady to work a taser.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did you not see the video where Brooks was DUI. Where he resisted arrest. Where he violently assaulted two cops. Where he used force to steal a police taser. Where he endangered the lives of the cops by firing the taser at them?

Saying he endangered their lives with a taser is a serious case of hair splitting. Cops are issued tasers as a non lethal alternative to guns.

As I keep saying, apprehend him later. Bring him to justice and let a Judge throw the book at him.

BattleCorp wrote: »

What if it was the police officer's gun that he took from him? That mightn't have ended up well for the cop. Lucky for the cop that it was the taser that he took.

The cop was legally in possession of the gun. Brooks was illegally in possession of a stolen police taser that he had just stolen using violence. I'd consider someone who did that to be pretty dangerous.

But he didnt grab the gun...it was the taser. There is a very important distinction and there is no equivalance with a loaded gun. As I said earleir, if he started firing back with a gun then we would not be having this debate.

BattleCorp wrote: »

He didn't just wave the taser around. He shot it at the cops. I'd have a problem with the cops shooting him if he was unarmed, but he had a stolen police taser that he had just fired at the cops.

If he had grabbed a handful of rocks and hurled them back at the cops would you share the same opinion that he was armed and dangerous and being shot dead was justified?

Afterall, rocks can be lethal and you will suffer a far worse injury getting a rock to the head than being jolted by a taser.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

It has been reported that one cop kicked Rayshard after they shot him, while another officer stood on his shoulders as he lay dying on the ground...

I think there might be more to come out from this than we've seen on the footage. You only have to listen to the reaction of the bystanders at the end of the video footage. Every person you hear, is criticising the officers for shooting this man. They can tell it was way over the top to shoot him 3 times in the back while he's running away!

Spon Farmer

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It has been reported that one cop kicked Rayshard after they shot him, while another officer stood on his shoulders as he lay dying on the ground...

I think there might be more to come out from this than we've seen on the footage. You only have to listen to the reaction of the bystanders at the end of the video footage. Every person you hear, is criticising the officers for shooting this man. They can tell it was way over the top to shoot him 3 times in the back while he's running away!

Rolffe "kicked" Brooks but what kind of kick?

Was he kicking him to hurt him or test whether he was moving? A nudge with a foot is a kick.

Did Brosnan actually stand on on top of Brooks or have a foot on his shoulders for some reason? He has not been fired but put on desk duty which I believe is not uncommon after a shooting. I doubt they do that to him if he actually stood on top of Brooks.I mean the full wight of a man on a guy's chest or back? Wouldn't that kill someone?

Bold Abdu

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It has been reported that one cop kicked Rayshard after they shot him, while another officer stood on his shoulders as he lay dying on the ground...

I think there might be more to come out from this than we've seen on the footage. You only have to listen to the reaction of the bystanders at the end of the video footage. Every person you hear, is criticising the officers for shooting this man. They can tell it was way over the top to shoot him 3 times in the back while he's running away!

He was shot twice, not 3 times, whilst he himself was shooting a deadly weapon at a cop.


There's a difference between running away and what he actually did. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

He has zero chance of conviction.

He was fired on and he returned fire.

Lots of rich kid righteousness and paternalism and looking for a cause du jour can't change that.

His shots hits a car with multiple passengers inside...

Spon Farmer

I have to be honest, regardless of right or wrong by either party, I don't how those cops were able to react at all.

I probably would not have been able to get my feet again after such an ass kicking and would probably have **** myself at the thought of him coming at me again.

I've seen somethings in my time but Brooks was bloody strong - even more shocking when it comes after watching the video of how he was all that time before.

Spon Farmer

Overheal wrote: »

His shots hits a car with multiple passengers inside...

All three bullets hit a car?

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

Someone being drunk and especially high, as he was, can protect against pain and give immense strength.

We saw in Roscommon what happens when a weapon is lost.

You don’t know what happened in Roscommon we have no details except a cop responded to a violent call Solo.